First of all, it's a computer, not a religion. Relax.
a. Wrong. Apple has been pushing Macs in college for years and the huge push was when they were in direct competition with Microsoft. The strategy simple didn't work.
b. It's not a question of flash, it's a question of "works". I can't even think of an application under Linux that is better than one in Windows. They simply don't exist. Word processing, publishing programs, learning aids, graphics programs, and yes -- games, they are all superior. Face the truth. The average person doesn't care about the OS. All they care about is applications.
c. Yes they can play games at school. Ever heard of recess or lunch time? And not all games are Quake.
d. You can make all the excuses you want, but an Epson color printer is no more a "windows" printer than an HP Laserjet is a "windows" printer. The point is that printer support under Linux is atrocious compared to Windows.
e. I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was far inferior to Windows. And it is. If you try and print a document with any complexity on a non-postscript printer, chances are it will not look like you expect. Again, printing is one of the things that has been notoriously neglected under Linux compared to Windows. And, I might point out, the two examples you cite of word processing programs are hugely inferior to Office. Not to mention the fact that the kid can't exchange office files with their Window's computer at home because the importation is so poor.
f. The applications are not comparable, they are far inferior. When this "special stuff" shows up, then Linux might be useful for the average person. Right now it is not.
I don't say all this to be negative toward Linux, I say it to bring a dose of reality to what is primarily an engineer mindset. Engineers look at how the bridge is built; regular people look at how easy and efficient it is to traverse the bridge. For some reason Linux advocates hold up their nose and say "What idiots. Well, if they want flash so much, then let them have it." Well, it's the regular people who are being logical. They simple want easy to use applications that just work! And Linux, while very nice in a lot of ways, does not have applications that "just work".
I'm sure some engineers cut their teeth on computers that were put into classrooms, but again, the argument is whether that ultimately increased market share. In your case, the "experiment" failed on those terms since you are currently developing for a Windows platform.
My school never had computers, but since I had an interest in them, I sought them out. My local community college (Orange Coast College, anyone?) had a IBM 3033(?) mainframe that I was able to sneak in some time. If there is an interest, then kids find them.
Aye lad, those were th' days back in '78, we dinna 'ave your pretty little 21" monitors, we had teletypes! An' we programm'd in APL, now there was a language! We 'ad a 2 meg workspace, and we were glad to 'ave it!
Your age is showing...:) Ask some twentysomethings how grew up with Windows about hacking it, and you'll find they have the same general experience as a lot of other hackers. COM is amazingly hackable once you get used to navigating the maze of plumbing.
Another example would be security. Linux could be used to demonstrate why open systems are superior to closed ones when it comes to security.
This is the flaw in your argument; you are wanting to use Linux for propaganda rather than education. Computers in schools are not generally used to teach kids about programming (much less Kernels), they are usually used for research, writing papers, educational tools, etc. In short -- it's the applications that matter, not the O/S.
Many of us in the computer business tend to think that everyone is interested in what goes on under the hood. In reality, probably only about 5% of the people want to know, or need to know what's under the hood. Most people just want to jump in the car and drive, and are not concerned about compression ratios. And this is how it should be. Not everyone has to be an engineer.
As for Macdonalds, that is a different thing. The first thing you have to realize is that Macdonalds does not sell hamburgers, they sell child care. They sell peace of mind that wherever you go, you are going to find a clean restaurant with predictable food.
To continue your analogy, it would be as if Macdonalds went into the schools to push students to learn about and use special Macd's fryers and coke dispensers. Well, no one cares how the food gets made, people want the food! This is why it's foolish to focus on the O/S rather than the applications.
Digital had huge advantage for a long time because people graduated from Universities used to DEC systems, and so when they became engineers, guess what kind of system they spec'ed?
But it didn't work! DEC is dead, if you haven't noticed.:)
The flaw in your argument is that people coming out of college have absolutely no power in specifying hardware. In an entry level job, they are going to learn whatever platform the company says to learn. The irony is that 1) they usually learn way more on the job than they ever learned in college, and 2) work experience is 10x stronger on a resume than college experience. For the latter reason, they will tend to stay with the hardware that they learn on their first job.
I don't underestimate the importance of that at all in terms of getting people involved with a particular platform at a superficial level.
No, no! It's not "superficial" to expect quality, easy-to-use applications. Take browsers. Let's fact it: Netscape under Linux sucks compares to Netscape under Windows, and really sucks compared to IE under Windows. But it's not just browsers; it's the whole gamut of software. When you get beyond shell-level programs, almost every application is superior under Windows.
At a high academic level, TeX might be useful, but it's worthless to the average student who just wants to write a report in a simple, friendly way.
Unfortunately, far too many Linux advocates focus on whatever advantages the O/S has, and forget that people use applications to get real work done. IMO, that's the huge weight that will make or break linux, pretty desktops notwithstanding.
I hate to be a wet blanket, but this never works. The theory always sounds good, "Hey! get them while they're young!", but the strategy has always been a failure. Look at Apple: They gave tons of subsidies to the schools, but how much did this affect their market share?
The problem is that kids have roughly the same priorities as adults: They don't care about the operating system, they want cool software. And all the cool software is for Windows.
Sure, their are a couple of games that have been ported to Linux, but everything else is Windows. I mean, Windows is light-years ahead on basic things such as creating documents with colors that will work on your basic cheap-o Epson color printer (and look right).
When we start seeing applications comparable to the ones in Windows we will start seeing Linux make inroads in both the "real world" and the schools.
If I read the site correctly, VA is offering this out of the goodness of their heart. While I don't don't their intentions, I wonder how long this can last if it proves to be more of a burden than they want.
Sure, VA has tons of money right now. But what happens when the good times stop rolling, and they really need to make money? When the shareholders start asking real questions like, "how do this bring value to my shares"?
It sounds really cool, but then lots of cool parks get built when cities have lots of money, but then the maintenance bills still come due when the recessions hit.:)
My favorite is still his very first professional story published in 1946, Rescue Party. If you haven't read it, find it in one of his anthologies. It's great!
I won't spoil the surprise, but I remember his introduction to the story saying something like "Many have commented about the human-chauvinist thrill that many get from reading this story. This perhaps tells more about the human race than we want to know.
Another (paraphrased) quote was, "Many have commented that this is their favorite story of mine. This is getting a cooler and cooler reception as the years go by.":)
---
Re:Here's a question I have
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
Well, I was using conservative and liberal to mean "restricted government" and "big government" (but not libertarian -- that's another can o' worms).
I agree that it's desirable to have many views available, but I reject the notion that it's not possible to report things relatively fairly. The national media could do a much better job of not editorializing the news.
As for Slashdot, surely you jest about "objectivity and truth"! While I will admit that there is a lot of vitality here, there is no question that many views that are outside the "slashdot culture" are shouted down. Heck, my original post was moderated down to flamebait! Try taking a moderate position on Microsoft, or take a position that Linux might not be the solution to all problems, and then get out the asbestos suit.
But then, I wouldn't expect anything else. Slashdot calls itself a news site, but it's really a editorial site. I understand that, and the debates are one of the reasons I come here.
---
Re:Here's a question I have
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
You're confusing worth to society to monetary worth. There is no question that teachers are extremely valuable to society.
However, teachers are not paid based on how much money the district has. They are paid based on supply and demand, just like all other jobs (such as corporate middle managers).
There are many factors that go into academic success, and money pales in importance compared to the district organization and the involvement level of the teachers.
Huh? She was not making a statement representing all teachers, she was making a statement of fact in her experience. By your logic, if I witness that one black is lynched, then we shouldn't draw any conclusions that what was done was wrong because I presume to speak for all blacks!
This is the fact: The teacher was actively not doing her job, and was actively damaging the students. The union actively prevented her from being fired. Why does this fact making you so "irritated"?
---
Re:Here's a question I have
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, and I mean this in a non-flaming way, you have bought into the propaganda of the left.
Let's take a couple of your points:
Arts support. Where in the constitution is it written that the government is supposed to subsidize the arts? Particularly art that is hateful and offensive to a majority of the population that are supposed to pay for it? Art will go on without the government. In fact, it would probably be better off without it, because it would have much more freedome of expression.
Education funding: Two points about this. 1) The quality of education has very little to do with funding, according to most studies. The schools have plenty of money. 2) Schools are meant to funded by state and local taxes, not by the federal government. There is a reason for this. The federal government is too big to administer local education, and you end up with education turning into indoctrination for the particular party that happens to be in power. Much better to have local parents with local issues be in charge.
If you want someone to blame for education, blame the teacher's unions. I have a friend who used to work in LA Unified School District. She worked with a fifth grade teacher who would only hand out coloring assignment. The principal was unable to fire her! The union is incredibly powerful in the schools.
A very well reasoned, well stated post. Quite refreshing, actually.:)
---
Re:Here's a question I have
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
Apparently you don't live here, so how do you know? In any case, I won't say that Americans are perfect (although, no one cares about ivy league schools outside of the East part of the country), what the country does offer is the chance to be rich, if you so choose, regardless of background. Is it easy? No, and yes, it's harder for some than others (what isn't?). But it happens every day.
And by the way, I believe the biblical quote is about the fact that you can't buy your way into heaven, not that money is evil. And before you butcher another quote, its "The love of money is the root of all evil", not "money".
---
Re:Here's a question I have
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
Well, I accept your point that we want unbiased reporting without any opinion, one way or the other.
Your other argument is just silly. Are their conservatives who try and censor liberal views? Of course, just as liberals try and censor conservative views (e.g., much of the media). No group has a monopoly on being closed minded to other views than their own. You're simply sensitive to conservative censorship because your inclined to see when your own beliefs are censored.
---
Re:Here's a question I have
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 2
Well, I will admit that the american media doesn't embrace radical socialism (usually), so I guess you have a point. However, that's still far from presenting fair, balanced views.
Your big boogieman is religion, apparently. I'm not particularly religious myself, but I just don't feel this fear that many slashdotters do of religion. Yes, you can cite particular abuses (striking evolution comes to mind), but the amount of damage caused by religous zealots (in modern times, please) pales to the amount of damage caused by liberal zealots. Heck, I could cite the grandaddy of them all: Welfare. That program has destroyed far more lives than it has saved. Now we have a huge underclass of people who think their only salvation is government, and they never realize that their only salvation is themselves.
---
Re:Here's a question I have
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
No, that's not something that needed to be pointed out to me, since it's so flamingly obvious (easy examples: gun control, abortion, welfare).
The only ones who think there is no bias are other extreme liberals who think the media is fair and balanced, because they present views that match extreme liberals (who, of course, think they are in the middle, fair and balanced).
---
Here's a question I have
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 0
Does Steve Case lean toward liberal or conservative, and will that affect Time Warner? Case hasn't shown any particular political leanings that I know of.
If he leaned toward being conservative, it would be interesting to see if finally we could have a media outlet that didn't have the huge liberal bias (I guess Fox news is trying to be more balanced, but I don't get them on my cable).
First off, let me say that I don't know whether Global Warming is happening or not; my specialty is computer science. What bothers me is that too many "scientists" seem to be using computer models of the atmosphere as proof that Global Warming is happening. Now, I know as a computer expert that computers are nowhere near powerful enough to model the entire earth's weather systems with any accuracy (if they can't predict the weather two days in advance, why do they think they can predict the weather 2 decades in advance?)
My question is this: Are these scientists merely chasing the Grant Money that buzzwords like Global Warming bring? Given the huge economic impact of some of the proposals that some of the more radical elements bring forth, I think questions such as this are critical.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, it's a computer, not a religion. Relax.
a. Wrong. Apple has been pushing Macs in college for years and the huge push was when they were in direct competition with Microsoft. The strategy simple didn't work.
b. It's not a question of flash, it's a question of "works". I can't even think of an application under Linux that is better than one in Windows. They simply don't exist. Word processing, publishing programs, learning aids, graphics programs, and yes -- games, they are all superior. Face the truth. The average person doesn't care about the OS. All they care about is applications.
c. Yes they can play games at school. Ever heard of recess or lunch time? And not all games are Quake.
d. You can make all the excuses you want, but an Epson color printer is no more a "windows" printer than an HP Laserjet is a "windows" printer. The point is that printer support under Linux is atrocious compared to Windows.
e. I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was far inferior to Windows. And it is. If you try and print a document with any complexity on a non-postscript printer, chances are it will not look like you expect. Again, printing is one of the things that has been notoriously neglected under Linux compared to Windows. And, I might point out, the two examples you cite of word processing programs are hugely inferior to Office. Not to mention the fact that the kid can't exchange office files with their Window's computer at home because the importation is so poor.
f. The applications are not comparable, they are far inferior. When this "special stuff" shows up, then Linux might be useful for the average person. Right now it is not.
I don't say all this to be negative toward Linux, I say it to bring a dose of reality to what is primarily an engineer mindset. Engineers look at how the bridge is built; regular people look at how easy and efficient it is to traverse the bridge. For some reason Linux advocates hold up their nose and say "What idiots. Well, if they want flash so much, then let them have it." Well, it's the regular people who are being logical. They simple want easy to use applications that just work! And Linux, while very nice in a lot of ways, does not have applications that "just work".
---
I'm sure some engineers cut their teeth on computers that were put into classrooms, but again, the argument is whether that ultimately increased market share. In your case, the "experiment" failed on those terms since you are currently developing for a Windows platform.
My school never had computers, but since I had an interest in them, I sought them out. My local community college (Orange Coast College, anyone?) had a IBM 3033(?) mainframe that I was able to sneak in some time. If there is an interest, then kids find them.
Aye lad, those were th' days back in '78, we dinna 'ave your pretty little 21" monitors, we had teletypes! An' we programm'd in APL, now there was a language! We 'ad a 2 meg workspace, and we were glad to 'ave it!
---
Your age is showing... :) Ask some twentysomethings how grew up with Windows about hacking it, and you'll find they have the same general experience as a lot of other hackers. COM is amazingly hackable once you get used to navigating the maze of plumbing.
---
Another example would be security. Linux could be used to demonstrate why open systems are superior to closed ones when it comes to security.
This is the flaw in your argument; you are wanting to use Linux for propaganda rather than education. Computers in schools are not generally used to teach kids about programming (much less Kernels), they are usually used for research, writing papers, educational tools, etc. In short -- it's the applications that matter, not the O/S.
Many of us in the computer business tend to think that everyone is interested in what goes on under the hood. In reality, probably only about 5% of the people want to know, or need to know what's under the hood. Most people just want to jump in the car and drive, and are not concerned about compression ratios. And this is how it should be. Not everyone has to be an engineer.
As for Macdonalds, that is a different thing. The first thing you have to realize is that Macdonalds does not sell hamburgers, they sell child care. They sell peace of mind that wherever you go, you are going to find a clean restaurant with predictable food.
To continue your analogy, it would be as if Macdonalds went into the schools to push students to learn about and use special Macd's fryers and coke dispensers. Well, no one cares how the food gets made, people want the food! This is why it's foolish to focus on the O/S rather than the applications.
---
Digital had huge advantage for a long time because people graduated from Universities used to DEC systems, and so when they became engineers, guess what kind of system they spec'ed?
But it didn't work! DEC is dead, if you haven't noticed. :)
The flaw in your argument is that people coming out of college have absolutely no power in specifying hardware. In an entry level job, they are going to learn whatever platform the company says to learn. The irony is that 1) they usually learn way more on the job than they ever learned in college, and 2) work experience is 10x stronger on a resume than college experience. For the latter reason, they will tend to stay with the hardware that they learn on their first job.
---
At some level, this is no different from the developer support programs that Apple and Microsoft have.
I have to admit that's an excellent point. Thank you.
---
I don't underestimate the importance of that at all in terms of getting people involved with a particular platform at a superficial level.
No, no! It's not "superficial" to expect quality, easy-to-use applications. Take browsers. Let's fact it: Netscape under Linux sucks compares to Netscape under Windows, and really sucks compared to IE under Windows. But it's not just browsers; it's the whole gamut of software. When you get beyond shell-level programs, almost every application is superior under Windows.
At a high academic level, TeX might be useful, but it's worthless to the average student who just wants to write a report in a simple, friendly way.
Unfortunately, far too many Linux advocates focus on whatever advantages the O/S has, and forget that people use applications to get real work done. IMO, that's the huge weight that will make or break linux, pretty desktops notwithstanding.
---
The simpsons in a car around Christmas, and run into an animal:
Homer: D'oh!
Marge: A deer!
Lisa: A female deer!
I still crack up when I think about it.
---
I hate to be a wet blanket, but this never works. The theory always sounds good, "Hey! get them while they're young!", but the strategy has always been a failure. Look at Apple: They gave tons of subsidies to the schools, but how much did this affect their market share?
The problem is that kids have roughly the same priorities as adults: They don't care about the operating system, they want cool software. And all the cool software is for Windows.
Sure, their are a couple of games that have been ported to Linux, but everything else is Windows. I mean, Windows is light-years ahead on basic things such as creating documents with colors that will work on your basic cheap-o Epson color printer (and look right).
When we start seeing applications comparable to the ones in Windows we will start seeing Linux make inroads in both the "real world" and the schools.
---
If I read the site correctly, VA is offering this out of the goodness of their heart. While I don't don't their intentions, I wonder how long this can last if it proves to be more of a burden than they want.
Sure, VA has tons of money right now. But what happens when the good times stop rolling, and they really need to make money? When the shareholders start asking real questions like, "how do this bring value to my shares"?
It sounds really cool, but then lots of cool parks get built when cities have lots of money, but then the maintenance bills still come due when the recessions hit. :)
---
My favorite is still his very first professional story published in 1946, Rescue Party. If you haven't read it, find it in one of his anthologies. It's great!
I won't spoil the surprise, but I remember his introduction to the story saying something like "Many have commented about the human-chauvinist thrill that many get from reading this story. This perhaps tells more about the human race than we want to know.
Another (paraphrased) quote was, "Many have commented that this is their favorite story of mine. This is getting a cooler and cooler reception as the years go by." :)
---
Well, I was using conservative and liberal to mean "restricted government" and "big government" (but not libertarian -- that's another can o' worms).
I agree that it's desirable to have many views available, but I reject the notion that it's not possible to report things relatively fairly. The national media could do a much better job of not editorializing the news.
As for Slashdot, surely you jest about "objectivity and truth"! While I will admit that there is a lot of vitality here, there is no question that many views that are outside the "slashdot culture" are shouted down. Heck, my original post was moderated down to flamebait! Try taking a moderate position on Microsoft, or take a position that Linux might not be the solution to all problems, and then get out the asbestos suit.
But then, I wouldn't expect anything else. Slashdot calls itself a news site, but it's really a editorial site. I understand that, and the debates are one of the reasons I come here.
---
You're confusing worth to society to monetary worth. There is no question that teachers are extremely valuable to society.
However, teachers are not paid based on how much money the district has. They are paid based on supply and demand, just like all other jobs (such as corporate middle managers).
There are many factors that go into academic success, and money pales in importance compared to the district organization and the involvement level of the teachers.
---
Huh? She was not making a statement representing all teachers, she was making a statement of fact in her experience. By your logic, if I witness that one black is lynched, then we shouldn't draw any conclusions that what was done was wrong because I presume to speak for all blacks!
This is the fact: The teacher was actively not doing her job, and was actively damaging the students. The union actively prevented her from being fired. Why does this fact making you so "irritated"?
---
Unfortunately, and I mean this in a non-flaming way, you have bought into the propaganda of the left.
Let's take a couple of your points:
Arts support. Where in the constitution is it written that the government is supposed to subsidize the arts? Particularly art that is hateful and offensive to a majority of the population that are supposed to pay for it? Art will go on without the government. In fact, it would probably be better off without it, because it would have much more freedome of expression.
Education funding: Two points about this. 1) The quality of education has very little to do with funding, according to most studies. The schools have plenty of money. 2) Schools are meant to funded by state and local taxes, not by the federal government. There is a reason for this. The federal government is too big to administer local education, and you end up with education turning into indoctrination for the particular party that happens to be in power. Much better to have local parents with local issues be in charge.
If you want someone to blame for education, blame the teacher's unions. I have a friend who used to work in LA Unified School District. She worked with a fifth grade teacher who would only hand out coloring assignment. The principal was unable to fire her! The union is incredibly powerful in the schools.
---
A very well reasoned, well stated post. Quite refreshing, actually. :)
---
Apparently you don't live here, so how do you know? In any case, I won't say that Americans are perfect (although, no one cares about ivy league schools outside of the East part of the country), what the country does offer is the chance to be rich, if you so choose, regardless of background. Is it easy? No, and yes, it's harder for some than others (what isn't?). But it happens every day.
And by the way, I believe the biblical quote is about the fact that you can't buy your way into heaven, not that money is evil. And before you butcher another quote, its "The love of money is the root of all evil", not "money".
---
Well, I accept your point that we want unbiased reporting without any opinion, one way or the other.
Your other argument is just silly. Are their conservatives who try and censor liberal views? Of course, just as liberals try and censor conservative views (e.g., much of the media). No group has a monopoly on being closed minded to other views than their own. You're simply sensitive to conservative censorship because your inclined to see when your own beliefs are censored.
---
Well, I will admit that the american media doesn't embrace radical socialism (usually), so I guess you have a point. However, that's still far from presenting fair, balanced views.
Your big boogieman is religion, apparently. I'm not particularly religious myself, but I just don't feel this fear that many slashdotters do of religion. Yes, you can cite particular abuses (striking evolution comes to mind), but the amount of damage caused by religous zealots (in modern times, please) pales to the amount of damage caused by liberal zealots. Heck, I could cite the grandaddy of them all: Welfare. That program has destroyed far more lives than it has saved. Now we have a huge underclass of people who think their only salvation is government, and they never realize that their only salvation is themselves.
---
No, that's not something that needed to be pointed out to me, since it's so flamingly obvious (easy examples: gun control, abortion, welfare).
The only ones who think there is no bias are other extreme liberals who think the media is fair and balanced, because they present views that match extreme liberals (who, of course, think they are in the middle, fair and balanced).
---
Does Steve Case lean toward liberal or conservative, and will that affect Time Warner? Case hasn't shown any particular political leanings that I know of.
If he leaned toward being conservative, it would be interesting to see if finally we could have a media outlet that didn't have the huge liberal bias (I guess Fox news is trying to be more balanced, but I don't get them on my cable).
---
OK, it's off-topic, but it's hilarious.
---
First off, let me say that I don't know whether Global Warming is happening or not; my specialty is computer science. What bothers me is that too many "scientists" seem to be using computer models of the atmosphere as proof that Global Warming is happening. Now, I know as a computer expert that computers are nowhere near powerful enough to model the entire earth's weather systems with any accuracy (if they can't predict the weather two days in advance, why do they think they can predict the weather 2 decades in advance?)
My question is this: Are these scientists merely chasing the Grant Money that buzzwords like Global Warming bring? Given the huge economic impact of some of the proposals that some of the more radical elements bring forth, I think questions such as this are critical.
---
I swear some of you people have no sense of humor. Moderate me down; I don't care. Woop-de-doo. Get a life.
---
I'm drunk with the karma power! Feel my comments surge through your pathetic attempts at moderation!
---